Regarding dental hygiene, it has been found desirable to remove residual food particles and plaque harboring between the teeth and under the gums. In fact, irritation occurs when food and plaque are left to remain between the teeth. This leads to tooth decay and periodontitis. Moderate to severe periodontitis will cause recession of gums, mobility of teeth, and eventual tooth loss. Teeth must be brushed and adjacent soft tissue massaged in order to maintain oral health.
Oral health is critical for certain individuals. Patients with heart defects are susceptible to further heart damage due to a bacteremia originating from inflamed gums. Orthopedic patients with total joint replacements are also candidates for similar infections due to unhealthy gums. An Advisory Statement of 1997 by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons strongly outlines the need for healthy oral tissues. Effective daily oral hygiene is important to all of us as well as in the above specificities.
A biomechanical problem exists with toothbrushing. There is a fine line between one keeping teeth adequately clean and one being overzealous and causing tooth abrasion and gingival recession from overbrushing. Harmful stress to oral tissues can be caused by a toothbrush on gingival tissue when an individual tries to reach deeper inaccessible areas between the teeth.
A normal toothbrush is effective for cleaning areas of the teeth exposed to the brush, but the professionals are in agreement that the bristles can not reach into deeper areas between the teeth. A favorable way to clean this interdental area is to use a length of string, commonly called dental floss. The intended motion of such floss is to have it seesaw through the contacts and be directed gently into the sulcus. It is then curved around the tooth, and lifted in the incisal direction while putting force toward the tooth surface being cleaned.
Unfortunately, flossing the entire dentition is time consuming. To accomplish this feat for all the teeth is very difficult. The back teeth must be done blindly, and many people don't have the dexterity to accomplish the task.
The interdental area is also maintained by interproximal brushes. However, in a normal and healthy interdental area, the space between the teeth is consumed by the dental papilla and this precludes the use of a small brush. The interdental brush is generally recommended by dentists to the older population.
Tooth picks and Johnson and Johnson's Stimudents are utilized to remove accessible plaque. However, they are too bulky to be placed into the delicate interdental sulcular area.
In U.S. Pat. No. 3,896,824 Thornton reveals a type of interdental massager that is an efficient type of dental floss. Difficulty arises when it is snapped through a tight contact. It is also arduous to clean an entire mouth at one time.
In U.S. Pat. No. 4,450,849 Cereo et al. disclose a type of dental tape or floss with rows of protuberances. This gingival stimulator suffers from inefficiency. It is very time consuming to place this type of device between each dental contact. Compliance on a regular basis could only be done by a very dedicated individual.
In U.S. Pat. No. 4,462,136 Nakao et al. invented a massaging device with small rows of fibers wrapped in a sheath. The converging shape of this stimulator makes for an inefficient design for entering into the narrow sulcular area and massaging epithelial lining.
In U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,929,144 and 4,011,658 Tarrson reveals a device for inserting dental floss through interproximal areas. This device is utilized to navigate a regular piece of dental floss between teeth. The device is not used to directly stimulate the gums. The loop end is utilized as an anchor to direct floss in a pulling motion.
In U.S. Pat. No. 4,319,377 Tarrson et al. disclose an interproximal toothbrush. The bristles of this invention are a cone design and this feature does not consider the space utilized by the interdental papilla. It is not an anatomical design.
In U. S. Pat. No. 4,911,187 Castillo designs a dental pick apparatus which is also of a symmetrical design. This brush does not allow for the space taken by the dental papilla.
In U.S. Pat. No. 5,609,170 Roth has invented an interproximal toothbrush. The extent of travel of the stimulator is limited by the length of the working sides. Because it is limited in its gingival reach by the highest part of epithelial attachment that it first touches, it is not free to splay into different directions. Areas of the interpoximal sulcus will not be stimulated.